Occupied America Welcomes You.

These links are stolen from this post, and well... watch them. I think they're Good.



And



And Some Curious and Oh yeah, Apathy's always been a problem! Scenarios and Some predictable scoffing at the freaking out by the Super-Rich over being called on their bullshit.

And now, I tell you why I don't mind that the #OccupyWallStreet (et al) movement doesn't seem to have a coherent message. You see, neither has the Left, for any real amount of time now. Even through the Obama campaign, the message was pretty much, "Something's Gotta happen now/Something's Gotta Give," with no indication of what that Something ought to be. Because we all had different ideas, and part of the character of the left is at least trying to respect the differences in those ideas, at least as far as what we ought to focus on.

The problem with that, while it is ideologically correct, is that it makes it damn hard to have anything to sink your teeth into, and get excited about.

Enter #OccupyWallStreet, the Left-in-Microcosm: confused, unfocused, desperate, eager, willing to be loud, and ultimately wanting it to be over so we can go home and get back to doing things we'll enjoy. The point isn't to be the message. It's to hold up the problem so that the responses will generate something we can stand behind, and shout to the rooftops. It's a roundabout way to get at the generation of a message, but has anything else worked? And if this doesn't work, it's just one more try, and at least a wonderfully visible one.

For my part, I'll continue to send pizza and bagels to the protesters, and hope it continues-- at least, until it's no longer needed.

On Plutocracy, Anarchy, and bitterness.

If Socialist is going to be a bad word, I want Objectivist to be a word at least as bad. Objectivist and Plutocrat should be synonymous with Anarchist, in the way that I see conservative blogs conflating Socialism and Fascism. Yeah, Dichotomy. Yeah, how the worm turns. But look here-- we have right-wingers shredding government past the point of Monarchy-- who wants monarchs? No one. And they're managing to skirt around Fascism even, except in the case of religious politics, because a non-secular government can't help it. One Faith = One Party is kind of... accidentally mandatory. But that's another shade of teal deer.

I am here today because I am bitter as all hell. The tear-down of government-- as a tyrant, as restrictive, as evil and thieving-- angers me deeply. Who is making this argument? Would-be Plutocrats who are convincing those of us who are a little-bit successful that the Government is trying to rule and run our lives for us.

No, not ours. Yours. Why? Because you can afford to run our lives, and Government is there to stop you. So what do you do? You forment near-anarchy, because you know you'll be able to buy your way out of it. You're plugging for the pure economic tyranny of the USSR, except instead of the State, wealth and the Plutocrat will be revered. You are holding up as an idol the spectre of "Success".

I don't think that word means what you want us to think it means.

Anyway. I need to make another post here-- a personal link list of Andelku's posts about The Hedgehog.

You'll understand when you see.

And the books were in our heads.

So, on the subject of this, following hard upon this, I have the following to say:

As it so happens, I lament the loss of old bookstores, but by god, I am not going to spit in the face of progress to do it, or for crying out loud, call progress and advancement Fascist. Protecting an industry is wrong when it's car companies clinging to gasoline instead of more efficient engines for aesthetic reasons, and it's wrong when its publishers who want to make a mint on mass market hardcovers. Will the books go away? No. Will they change? Yes, very probably. Is the Kindle the best medium for e-reading? Not necessarily, but that is why we have anti-trust and competition law, and other things to prevent monopoly.

I could say more, and make this truly tl;dr, but I think that I will have said what I mean, now.

Reacharound.

I'm not sure I can, in good faith, continue to call this a moderate blog. In spite of the fact that I am in agreement with the House Republicans on /their/ version of the economic bailout package in general-- one which requires wallstreet use private capital to inject liquidity into the market. I'm wary about the tax law easing part of it, but I'd have to look more closely at the details.

But the thing of it is, my opinions are becoming a lot more socialist than I had expected would ever happen. I believe that a society which required debt to function is fundamentally flawed, and this kind of thing is pretty much bound to happen. And I'm rather not convinced that such a collapse is a bad thing. So I'm rather biased here.

Frankly, I'd rather slice my own damn bread.